e.g. i understood the other two words in the title no problem.
i'm from moldova and i speak russian and understand ukrainian pretty easily. calling them distinct languages is true but it's pedantic - it's a very blurry line how mutually intelligible the two languages are.
I think the author's page (Alex Spartalis) deserves to be mentioned:
He has the same version (v2.10) there and mentions that, "The Web version does not include the distribution functions due to file size restrictions. Email me if you would like a copy of these." That explains why pages 213-330 are missing. Someone should offer to upload the full copy to keybase.pub (or someplace) since his personal site can't handle the load.
People sometimes do tremendous work creating a program/book/artwork, and want the world to see it, but don't get around to really share it or promote it.
However, now it appears that Alex's site no longer exists and nobody (including me) ever did upload the full copy to keybase.pub.
> However, now it appears that Alex's site no longer exists
In 2019 Alex moved to new site, which also is not availabale anymore, BUT there are backups of both sites.[0,3]
JFTR, You may try contact with Alex Spartails via Facebook & Instagram.[4,5]
Since 2018 sites hosted on Weebly not available in many countries due to Weebly's self-censorship.
In my experience, any cheat sheet that I didn't make myself is useless to me. Going directly to the sheet without having done the synthesis of information yourself skips the most important part of the process.
Often going through that process leaves you remembering them.
strongly agree. Some do but not all, so you can't rely on it. Those tldr sites are reasonable alternatives for most commands.
The key is remembering you have a cheatsheet for that rarely used knowledge.
this should be in latex on github/gitlab, so people can contribute and maintain, I would love to add numerical psedo code to as much equations as I possibly can with my primitive comprehension of mathematics.
You may take a look on `.travis.yml` used for MetaPost + ConTeXt rendition of Oliver Byrne's "The first six books of the Elements of Euclid".
I find people's obsession over memorizing mathematical symbols (part 2) really strange. If you understand what the concepts involved in a symbol mean, you won't have a problem recognizing the commonly used symbols. And if you don't understand what the concepts involved mean, then having memorized the symbol does you no good.
Am I missing something?
Edit, since I'm apparently in a very critical mood today: It seems very strange for a document to barely scratch the absolute essentials for something as important and broadly applicable as linear algebra, yet go on and on and on with quite esoteric lists of special primes that surely concern at most researchers in specialized parts of number theory? Of all the lists of primes that the author chooses to focus on, I must say I had only heard of three (Fibonacci, Mersenne and Gaussian). Granted, my PhD is in a very different part of math, but this seems a bit… crazy… in such a document. (Also, are the lists "even primes: 2", and "odd primes [insert list of all other primes here]" meant as jokes?)
Edit 2: Same goes with the obsession with pi. The amount of effort and space spent on features of primes and pi that are incredibly unimportant except to very specialized researchers is… a bit insane in a document like this.
this would imply in learning a new language if you know what the concepts a word refers to means that you won't have any difficulty recognizing the word - no matter how many words there are, how long the statement you are reading is, and how similar various words are to each other?
When learning something it is nice to have a reference.
One's chances of finding out what an unfamiliar symbol means in context (or a familiar symbol in unfamiliar usage) is greatly helped (though not completed) if you can get a name or one or more précis of its uses.
> PART 2: MATHEMTAICAL SYMBOLS
I still wish there was LaTeX for it.
As email probably unavailable, there are Alex's Facebook/Instagram.
Stumbled upon the website while searching for the complete version of the OP link.
Rational Numbers: Every rational number can be written as r = [(r - 1) + (r + 1)] / 2
I would have expected p / q with p and q integers or some variation of this.
When you have to go the opposite direction, you start with r and must turn it something that fits some other expression, there are infinite ways to proceed. Right ones rarely just pop up into your mind.
Remembering trivial identities things like that are useful as small intermediate steps when manipulating expressions.
> γ = 0.527721566...
I think it's closer to 0.577 215 664 901 ... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Mascheroni_const...